VATORGARD CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THE appellant was the complainant before the State Commission where he filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained an insurance cover from the respondent Insurance Company for a total sum of Rs. 12.00 lakhs from the period 1.12.1989 to 30.11.1990 under Fire Policy ''C'' covering the risk of fire, cyclone and strike, etc. The insurance cover for building was Rs. 3.00 lakhs, for machinery, plant and utensils Rs. 3.00 lakhs and for stock in trade or merchandise consist of stock of Bauxite, Sulphuric Acid, Coal and semifinished and finished goods Rs. 6.00 lakhs. On 9.5.1990 a severe cyclone hit the factory and damage was caused estimating over Rs. 5,55,000/-. Initially, as alleged by the respondent the claim was offered to be settled at Rs. 97,516/- but that was not acceptable to the appellant and since the claim was not finally settled a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 77,644/-, based on the valuation of loss as assessed by the Surveyor, along with interest suffered @ 12% p.a. after deducting Rs. 46,258/- already paid to the appellant. Not satisfied with this relief, this appeal has been filed.

IT is the case of the appellant that the Surveyor has not properly assessed the loss to the finished goods as also the semi-finished goods. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. From the Survey report, as far as finished goods are concerned, they have taken into consideration the survey from the Superintendent of Central Excise relating to the stock of 77.050 MT of ferric alum. The Surveyor in his report has dealt with this issue in following terms : "The insured has produced a certificate from the Superintendent of the Central Excise stating a loss of 77.050 MT but verification of the factory records during the undersigned''s second visit on 23.6.1990 revealed the following. The insured stated despatching the cyclone affected quantity immediately after the event and in due course has shown the ground balance as nil and accounted for the difference of 77.050 MT vis-a-vis the despatched quantity as loss."

Nothing to the contrary has been shown to us or brought on record to take a view different than the view taken by the Surveyor and accepted by the State Commission. As far as semi-finished goods are concerned, the State Commission in para 14 of its order has made the following observations : "The insured claimed Rs. 65,000/- towards the loss of 50 MT of semi-finished ferric alum liquor. But the daily statements of factory for the days May 7 and 8, 1990 indicate that the evaporator and the digester, the two essential equipments in the process link are being cleaned which suggests that the process was stopped on those two days. Accordingly there was no quantity under process as on 9.5.1990 and hence the claim of the insured on account of the loss of 50 MT of the same is untenable and disallowed."

AGAIN nothing has been brought on record to rebut the finding on the conclusion reached by the Surveyor.

WHAT the learned Counsel for the appellant wishes to rebut is on the basis of a analysis against the final finding but this is not supported by any document whereas the findings of the Surveyor are backed by detailed examination and also documents which were Annexure-I and III respectively. The appellant has failed to satisfy us to take any other view than the view taken by the State Commission based on the report of the 1 Surveyor which is supported by finding of fact based on material produced before them which has not been rebutted by any record to the contrary. Hence, we are not in a position to take a different view than the one taken by the State Commission in awarding the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor. It is settled proposition of law that the report of the Surveyor is an important piece of document. The appellant has to challenge that on the basis of documentary or any specific evidence which has not been done in this case. As various points raised in the analysis report filed by the appellant before the State Commission cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum without asking for an elaborate evidence which it is not possible for the Consumer Forums to do, thus, we are leaving the choice to the appellant to go before the Civil Court for seeking relief for other items and seeking condonation of delay for the period spent before the Consumer Forums in terms of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) = (1995) 3 SCC 583. This appeal is devoid of merit and hence dismissed.